Miami Judge Gets It Right, Rules for Embattled Cuban Father in 'Elian Gonzalez II' Case
September 27th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: I've previously covered the "Elian Gonzalez II" case in Miami--a battle over a 4-year-old Cuban immigrant girl which pits her Cuban father, Rafael Izquierdo (pictured), against wealthy Cuban-American foster parents Joe Cubas, a well-known sports agent, and his wife, Maria. Just as Elian's father Juan Gonzalez faced numerous unfair hurdles to get his son back, Izquierdo has been manhandled by the child welfare system, in part because of the system's anti-father bias.
In 2005, the girl's mother brought the girl to Miami from Cuba. The Florida Department of Children & Families removed the girl from her mother's custody in 2006, after an investigation found that the woman's mental illness rendered her an unfit parent. She was placed with a foster family, and Izquierdo came to the US to bring his daughter home.
Izquierdo has spent months in the US and has been denied custody of his daughter--an outrageous violation of fathers’ rights. Izquierdo should not have to fight to raise his own child. He is a fit father--how and where to raise his daughter is his decision.
Judge Jeri B. Cohen faced down the angry Cuban-American community and did the right thing today in the Elian Gonzalez II case, ruling that Rafael Izquierdo is a fit parent who did not abandon his daughter, and should be permitted to take the girl back home to Cuba. Outrageously, the Florida Department of Children & Families has done everything it could do to malign Izquierdo and wrest custody away from him, spending over a quarter million dollars to do so. The Associated Press story is below.
Judge Rules for Cuban Father
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ
Associated Press, 9/27/07
MIAMI — The father of a 5-year-old Cuban girl at the center of an international custody battle did not abandon or neglect her, so he should get her back, a judge ruled Thursday.
Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen said she would not immediately return the girl to her father, Cuban farmer Rafael Izquierdo, who wants to take her back to Cuba.
The girl went into foster care after her mother brought her to the U.S. in 2005 and then attempted suicide days before Christmas. She has been living with foster parents in Miami for the past 18 months and they want to keep the girl here.
The Florida Department of Children & Families said Izquierdo abandoned the girl and officials want the girl to stay with her foster parents, Joe and Maria Cubas, a wealthy Cuban-American couple. The state's attorneys said removing the girl after such a long time would cause her serious emotional trauma.
Cohen said she would hold a follow-up hearing to listen to the state's arguments, but urged the department to "take the blindfold off and see the forest for the trees."
Izquierdo has denied that he abandoned his daughter and has professed his desire to return with her to Cuba.
"The court cannot deny Izquierdo custody of his child," Cohen said.
The father, foster parents and mother were all in court as the judge read her 47-page ruling over several hours. The judge said Izquierdo's efforts to regain his daughter once she was put in foster care "were not marginal for a man of his circumstances."
"He has diligently participated in what must seem to him a mysterious and daunting legal process. While geographically, Cuba is only 90 miles from the United States shores, the two countries are philosophically and politically worlds apart," Cohen said.
"));
19 queries. 0.588 seconds.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Thank goodness,
I am elated to see at least 1 judge gets it.
Linda
September 27th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
What an absolute waste of taxpayer (our) money.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Now the real question is, if both parents were American, and of course the child was American, would the Father get his child, or would our government agencies and court then feel they had carte blanche to play God with this man's child?
I seems to me, the real message here may be that our courts are wise enough to not draw more international attention to what this country is doing by way to stripping the rights away of American fathers whenever our government has an agency which gets its paws on an American child.
They wisely draw a firm line when it comes to snatching the children of foreign nationals.
How quaint.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
AnonymousPampleteer - Interesting point. I didn't think of it that way. I am willing to bet your right.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
"The court cannot deny Izquierdo custody of his child," Cohen said.
The court should be EXTREMELY reluctant to deny ANY capable and willing parent more than half custody of their children.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Yes Michael, but if they gave up that power, how would they create so much employment for their putrid "family law" (sic) cronies? They couldn't.
Their power to kill fathers from the lives of children is the basis of 90%+ of the lawyer fees which are forcibly extracted in family court in custody situations.
It is a very simple business model.
September 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
"The Florida Department of Children & Families said Izquierdo abandoned the girl and officials want the girl to stay with her foster parents, Joe and Maria Cubas, a wealthy Cuban-American couple. The state's attorneys said removing the girl after such a long time would cause her serious emotional trauma."
Apparently they never considered that factor for the previous 42 months of her life.
Outrageous!!!
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 am
The little girl should be put into her Daddy's loving hands and the former relationship re-established.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Michael H Said: "The court should be EXTREMELY reluctant to deny ANY capable and willing parent more than half custody of their children."
Half custody is a fiction. You either have the natural right to it, like this father, or you don't. Under the common law, and I challenge anyone to show me when and how the law has changed, a father has a natural right to guardianship because he is the head of the household. In an intact household, there can only be one.
This father "did not abandon or neglect her," so he should get her back. The state can't place a ward of the state that has been shown to have a legal guardian. A more dramatic case I have seen shows a probate court order was null and void where it was later shown the decedent was in fact alive.
The principle is really the same. The state takes control of children when they are abused or neglected, or when parents agree to allow a family court to determine custody. When a natural parent objects and shows there is no case against him, the burden is on the state to show there is. A necessary fact in the court's jurisdiction is abandonment (including abdication of natural guardianship rights), abuse, or neglect.
This father wasn't buying it because he hasn't been suckered into thinking state family courts are the same as courts with general jurisdiction. They are not. They are inferior courts with limited statutory jurisdiction.
They haven't let the child go, yet.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
Much respect for Judge Cohen's ruling. It's refreshing to see judgments that are actually just. I wish Mr. Izquierdo & his daughter well for all the nonsense they had to deal with in "the land of the free." We the people need to take back our government from the bureaucrats, politicians, and "criminal injustice" officials who are running roughshod over our rights for the sake of their personal agendas and bank accounts;these people who actually work for us are totally out of control and need to be stopped. Knowing the law and how to use it to obtain justice is extremely important knowledge to have in order to live in a free republic. Communication between citizens is necessary to stop many of these injustices;exposing these abusers of the law must happen on a continuous, consistent basis. Dr. King said it best "...freedom and justice are indivisible. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
October 4th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
i sit here amazed and confused on the one hand do you want a child to grow up in cuba under castro. or do you want the child to stay here in america. And the father has it hands down but now that he is here in america he will stay or mabey find family to take child. The real crime in my book is in the mother was she just poor or did she need help .Did the Department of children and family do all that it could do ???for this child and mother ??? no, it did what it has always done, nothing. But causes more problems I do hope in the near future now that we have had several judges through various courts decide that children must stay with parents this is a no brainer. And we will not have to spend another tax paying doller on this noncence. Perhaps a judge should file charges against
October 4th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
THe department of children and familys for violating peoples rights. And the Cuban People of Miami will put thier heads together and learn to fight the real injustice done to this child by not helping her mother. D.C.F is not an adoption agency. Well I could go on about this for hours.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Angela, D.C.F IS an adoption agency. The problems start when the state takes charge of children when a responsible parent is willing and able to provide for them. They can take them from an irresponsible parent, and they must then investigate to determine whether there is a need to place them. If he allowed the mother to take care the child when he knew she was incapable, that would tend to support neglect, and the court could investigate his fitness as a natural guardian. I think that's what they did here.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I for one would like to see the culprits of the Flordia Dept. of children & families pay a huge price....like being forced to live in Cuba !! No more state job with unlimited power, pay & benifits. Let them live in a place where they live in fear for a change.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
oh well , i still sit here waiting on Dcf or the family butchers to go down the drain. If you check into DCF you will see thoses people make a mint off of children from poor parents. around 40 thousand dollors a child. Now i wonder what would happen if you gave thoses familys that money. I hate DCF and all of its workers for destroying FLORIDA familys just look it up . should be held in court for thier actions against familys in this state.. I still stand by my first statement DCF is not an adoption agency to take peoples children and hand them out like candy let these people go through a real adoption if thay want kids , instead of trying to kidnapp poor peoples kids.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
oh before i forget i was just wondering if the man will have to pay child supprt for a child he cant get back from family butcher shop . You bet, i do you must pay support for your child while in state care , you must pay for your life to be made a living hell and that of your child now there is a real case for the courts. later
October 13th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
"Izquierdo should not have to fight to raise his own child. He is a fit father--how and where to raise his daughter is his decision."
North Korea? Burma? Zimbabwe? A Jewish family in Nazi Germany? Would the father be "fit" in those cases? The nature of the government isn't a moral consideration? Wow. I disagree.
For a report by Human Rights Watch on what life is like for Cubans:
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/cuba14886.htm
For an article by a man who supported returning Elian Gonzalez to Cuba at the time, but has since come to regret his position:
http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/tzizza082206.htm
For pictures of Elian Gonzalez before and after he was returned to Cuba:
http://www.therealcuba.com/elian_gonzalez.htm
I commented further at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1112.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Charles Seidel -
North Korea? Burma? Zimbabwe? A Jewish family in Nazi Germany? Would the father be "fit" in those cases? The nature of the government isn't a moral consideration? Wow. I disagree.
______________
YOU DISAGREE? Are YOU kidding?
Are we to believe that if Elians mother had decided to stay in Cuba. We would be correct in taking him away because of where he is living?
Do you think our courts have a moral obligation to march into every country they want to, and because they don't like the looks of things, that they can rip the children out of their parents care?
Perhaps, the courts should have the right to go into YOU and just look around. And if they don't like YOUR MORAL STANDING. They can snatch your children.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Charles Seidel Says:
October 13th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
North Korea? Burma? Zimbabwe? A Jewish family in Nazi Germany? Would the father be "fit" in those cases? The nature of the government isn't a moral consideration? Wow. I disagree.
For a report by Human Rights Watch on what life is like for Cubans:
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/cuba14886.htm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So because we are the best nation on earth (ok we still have to make many improvements), any one parent who runs off with their child from an other country to the US and either has the child taken away because of neglect or abandonment or worse the parent dies, and the surviving parent locates his child, has no right to that child because in our owe eyes we are the best place on earth to live. No sir that is just wrong. Ask the child, I will bet that he would love to go home.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:23 am
So you would send a child back to North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, or a Jewish family in Nazi Germany?
October 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am
I assume you agree that children may properly be taken from parents who are unfit, and
that someone has to make, and does make, that determination, both in domestic cases and
in the cases of the Cuban children. If I were judged unfit, the court certainly would march
into my home and take my children; shouldn't it? Our disagreement is only over what
constitutes unfitness.
If a Jewish child managed to escape from Nazi Germany, and his parents wanted him back,
returning the child would be monstrous. Should the child die for parents' "rights"?
The difference to a human being between a life under oppression or a life in freedom is not
subjective, as the above comments ("don't like the look of things", "in our own eyes we are the best place on earth to live") suggest; it is factual and demonstrable. That the people of North Korea are suffering a subhuman existence, is not merely what I happen to think, or a matter of my particular taste, or an arbitrary preference; it is a fact, just as it is a fact that a parent who leaves a child in an overheated car with closed windows is objectively harming the child. The determination of relevant facts is precisely what courts are for.
A parent who wants his child to live the rest of his life in a slave state, when there is an
opportunity to live in freedom, is by that fact unfit, and the court should have said so.
The court did not march into Cuba; the girl is in our country, and we are sending her back;
for that, we bear the moral responsibility -- and shame.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Charles Seidel Says:
October 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am
I assume you agree that children may properly be taken from parents who are unfit, and
that someone has to make, and does make, that determination, both in domestic cases and
in the cases of the Cuban children. If I were judged unfit, the court certainly would march
into my home and take my children; shouldn't it? Our disagreement is only over what
constitutes unfitness.
______________________________________
I believe that unless a parent is proven unfit they have the right to raise their children. A parent IS NOT unfit just because they live in a country that YOU or the COURTs do not agree with.
That's convoluted thinking, to compare a child left in an over heated car, to a child being brought up in another country. I must admit, that you are showing the mentality of our family courts. That they have the rights to take children away from a parent, just because they don't like the way the other country is run.
You can bet if Elians mother did not die, and decided to go back to Cuba. Then this whole uproar about him staying here would not have been an issue. The Izquierdo little girl was taken from her UNFIT mother. Her father WAS NOT unfit. He just did not have a lot of money. I am not prepared to compare MONEY to LOVE. And neither should our court systems.
I am sure you will keep going back to Nazi Germany. Which is very unfair to the Jewish people that were being tortured and taken from their families. To compare them to these two cases. The only comparison is that taking the children from their loving family. Which makes our court system no better than Nazi Germany.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Charles Seidel Says:
October 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am
I assume you agree that children may properly be taken from parents who are unfit, and
That someone has to make, and does make, that determination, both in domestic cases and
in the cases of the Cuban children. If I were judged unfit, the court certainly would march
into my home and take my children; shouldn't it? Our disagreement is only over what
constitutes unfitness.
If a Jewish child managed to escape from Nazi Germany, and his parents wanted him back,
returning the child would be monstrous. Should the child die for parents' "rights"?
The difference to a human being between a life under oppression or a life in freedom is not
subjective, as the above comments ("don't like the look of things", "in our own eyes we are the best place on earth to live") suggest; it is factual and demonstrable. That the people of North Korea are suffering a subhuman existence, is not merely what I happen to think, or a matter of my particular taste, or an arbitrary preference; it is a fact, just as it is a fact that a parent who leaves a child in an overheated car with closed windows is objectively harming the child. The determination of relevant facts is precisely what courts are for.
A parent who wants his child to live the rest of his life in a slave state, when there is an
opportunity to live in freedom, is by that fact unfit, and the court should have said so.
The court did not march into Cuba; the girl is in our country, and we are sending her back;
for that, we bear the moral responsibility -- and shame.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is so much here that can be argued I do not know where to start.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The court did not march into Cuba; the girl is in our country, and we are sending her back;
for that, we bear the moral responsibility -- and shame.
________
So, if you were to save in good conscience someone’s life and later he/she murders someone I guess that means that you would bear the moral responsibility, the shame, and should be duly punished?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A parent who wants his child to live the rest of his life in a slave state, when there is an opportunity to live in freedom, is by that fact unfit, and the court should have said so.
____________
Arguable it is to state the Cuba is a slave state... in fact what do we know of his father? There are some very privileged, and privileged people that live in Cuba, after all he came her to claim his child was fighting our court system, is going to take him back, he must have some kind of money and privilege. If we deserve the brunt of any shame, it is to have needlessly made this man spend his money on our legal system, and taking the same away form his family and child.
So the government should take my child from me because I only make $20K a year and give him to you because you make $250K because your income would without question provide a better life, present more opportunities’, and allow more freedoms? (Or would it with the child’s knowledge that he has a father and family that he cannot see or later come to believe that his family wants noting to do with him) Sorry I do not buy it, and that should be the crux of this argument, where should this line be drawn?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The difference to a human being between a life under oppression or a life in freedom is not subjective
____________
You think it is objective? One can be in prison and still be free; it is more of a state of mind than reality. No one can take my thoughts away THAT is what makes me free not my ability to move around. This is a state of mind and if you cannot figure this out you have already lost all battles because there are many laws in this country that restrict your movements and can be perceived by other to be limiting. Even some thoughts when expressed verbally are an offence for which one can be jailed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Making a comparison to ALL people who live in Korea and ONE child in a car is not germane. Enough on that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If a Jewish child managed to escape from Nazi Germany, and his parents wanted him back,
returning the child would be monstrous. Should the child die for parents' "rights"?
First, I believe this argument to be silly and moot; beside we are not sending this kid back to Cuba to be executed. Nice compassion ploy but it does not work for me because again that argument is not germane.
Second, the parents I am sure helped him escape and
Third, it is moot because this cultural structure no longer exists.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I assume you agree that children may properly be taken from parents who are unfit
_________
Again, that definition of unfit worries me.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Our disagreement is only over what constitutes unfitness
____________
Very true.
Great debate, Thanks!
October 16th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
"Please stop insulting our intelligence by comparing this to a Jew in Nazi Germany.
"Best wishes,
"Glenn Sacks" [October 14]
Dear Mr. Sacks:
In your newsletter of October 2, you wrote: "Izquierdo should not have to fight to raise his own child. He is a fit father--how and where to raise his daughter is his decision."
I took your statement seriously. If you didn't mean it, you were insulting my intelligence, and wasting my time.
You are not arguing that there are good countries and bad countries, and Cuba is a good one. You are arguing that we have no right to judge, and my example quite properly shows the absurdity of that position. So do my other examples: North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, and, I could add, the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, or modern Somalia, where little girls are ritually mutilated.
Your position as quoted above means that the actions of a government are irrelevant to the welfare of a child, or an adult, who lives under it. But if that is so, why give a rat's behind what the American government does -- for example, a family court in Florida?
What can explain Americans who daily and passionately assert their rights in America -- you make a living at it -- but when faced with the wholesale, systematic, and permanent violation of the rights of an entire population by a foreign regime, refuse to judge it, and denounce those who do judge it? What would explain, for example, an American feminist who sues her employer for sexual harrassment in the workplace, but denies that Moslem oppression affects the welfare of women in the Middle East?
What can explain those contradictions?
You do not argue for unlimited parental control; you have written that abused fathers "deserve a rope and a tree."
You do not deny that Cuba is a dictatorship.
If you want to defend Cuba as against those other regimes, or others, then by all means go ahead and do so; and please explain how you differentiate a good dictatorship from a bad one.
But please do not write what you do not mean.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:23 am
WHAT???? This is about a parent and childs right to be together. (less being physically or mentally unfit)
You have somehow made this into what the American government or courts should do about ALL children in the world. When we disagree with the other governments.
It is true, the governments your mention were horrible. However, we DO NOT have a right to play Pied Piper with the children .
You sound like you want us to go into EVERY country we do not agree with, and steal all the children. How would this make us any better than the dictators you keep writing about?
You are comparing apples to oranges. FAMILIES have a right to be together. These 2 children were NOT abused by their fathers. It doesn't matter what country they came from. They are loved by their fathers.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
"Bernie Misiura Says:
"October 14th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
"One can be in prison and still be free; it is more of a state of mind than reality. No one can take my thoughts away THAT is what makes me free not my ability to move around. This is a state of mind and if you cannot figure this out you have already lost all battles because there are many laws in this country that restrict your movements and can be perceived by other to be limiting. Even some thoughts when expressed verbally are an offence for which one can be jailed."
I wonder what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's free thoughts were while being waterboarded. The people who oppose that method of interrogation can rest easy; it turns out he is not even a captive! He is free in the only way that matters: mentally! If his mind tells him he's drowning, well, he is free to think something else. After all, the great thing about mental freedom is that the mind is not restricted by what happens to the body; you can be hungry, tired, sick, bleeding profusely from the head -- what does it matter? Your thoughts are still free, and none of that can touch them! And if you think you'd like to act on your thoughts, just think otherwise -- that's the solution; actions are so overrated. If your children are taken from you against your will, don't think about them! Or do think about them! Whatever. All that matters is our thoughts, and our thoughts are all free, so we are all free, all the time -- even the Jews in Nazi Germany were free, free, free! (For God's sake, Khalid, stop gurgling!)
In addition to illustrating the mind-body dichotomy, a theory popular in the Middle Ages and the Cold War, this example illustrates the point of my comment above. When addressing actions of the U.S., like dealing with accused terrorists, people claim the paramount value is freedom, but when addressing actions of some other government, freedom is -- quite literally, in this case -- not an issue at all. The double standard is absolutely astonishing.
What it makes possible is the avoidance of any judgment of the other regime, for those who don't want to judge it. The three of you, Linda W, Bernie Misiura, and Glenn Sacks, like many others, have steadfastly avoided any evaluation of Cuba. I believe that's why you were all stung by my mention of the Nazis; it strips away the pretense that judging isn't necessary.
Into this context, Lanny Davidson brings a refreshing honesty, forthrightly describing Cuba, in effect, as a workers' paradise (at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1112). I imagine that you, Mr. Sacks, must believe much the same as he does: in both your radio interviews, you spoke as though the only reason anyone could possibly object to living in Cuba is the lower standard of living, compared with the U.S. So why not say so? I have asked you to say so (same page, http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1112), but you haven't. Why the reticence? What would be so terrible about joining Mr. Davidson in singing the Cuban government's praises, if you think that's what it deserves? Please give us your appraisal. It's not an unreasonable request.
Thank you.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Charles Seidel Says:
I wonder what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's free thoughts were while being waterboarded.
____________________________
Are you talking about THE Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ? The very one that masterminded 9/11? THE Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that beheaded Daniel Pearl in 2002, because Daniel was an American Jew ? Then proudly posted pictures of himself on the Internet holding daniels his head ?
THAT Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ? The method of interrogation used on him was nothing compared to the devestation he caused many families in this country.
You really need to know WHO to use to compare the rights of a father and child. You keep searching and using the wrong people. It is getting rather funny. Eventually you may get it right.
I am not STUNG by your mention of Nazis. It in fact made me laugh. ....
The only thing that the Nazis have in common with these cases, is that our government officials that are supposed to be protecting children. Are acting just like the Nazis did. In tearing the children away from their families.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Charles Seidel Says:
What it makes possible is the avoidance of any judgment of the other regime, for those who don't want to judge it. The three of you, Linda W, Bernie Misiura, and Glenn Sacks, like many others, have steadfastly avoided any evaluation of Cuba.
__________________
No "relative" replaces the parent. And certainly a rich ex-cuban who holds a child against the will of the parent is committing a major crime.
America has not always done the right thing either. Instead of staying in Cuba and fighting for their freedom ex-cubans ran to Miami. Demanding that we Americans fight for them. We became as insane as the ex-cubans. Trying to kill Castro. Think about the Bay of Pigs. How we withheld food and medicine from the cuban people. How we almost used the "Bomb"
The bottom line is NO ONE has the right to take a child from his/her parent. And to judge another countries parental rights because we don't like the goverment is TOTALLY wrong.
But of course you will never understand this. Thus as far as I am concerned. This is the last time I try to explain.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:39 am
Linda W: It never occurred to me that anyone would think I was defending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which was the farthest thing from my mind. I used him as a handy example of a captive, to show that a free mind does not, by itself, make a person free.
Mr. Sacks: With all due respect, and although your honesty has been exemplary, so far as I can judge, on other issues, you have been less than fully honest about this issue. For example, in your radio interviews you misrepresented the status of Rafael Izquierdo's legal counsel, as I have pointed out elsewhere (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1112), and you slipped into both interviews a well-planned little smear of the Miami foster father, before quickly adding that it's irrelevant; that is not an honest way to defend your position.
More basically, you have pretended that you believe in unlimited parental control over where a child is raised, whereas you do, in fact, have limits; you just don't want to say where they are, and why there. (And when I made that point, you accused me of insulting your intelligence.)
And most basically, you have pretended that you don't know what the controversy is about -- that it must be about Cuba's poverty -- that Cuba is a normal country -- when in fact you know very well that there would be no controversy if the children were being sent to a free country. By means of this evasion you have avoided discussion of the real issue: the effects on human beings of living in a dictatorship.
Perhaps such a debate would be difficult. If I remember correctly what you have written, your father-in-law is from Cuba, so it is safe to assume that you are more familiar with the realities of life in that country than Lanny Davidson, whose view is based on what he observed as a tourist. Perhaps those realities would be hard to defend.
To top it off, you charged American conservatives with a massive moral failure on this issue (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=383). (I am not "a conservative.") Do you think that ignoring the reason for the controversy constitutes moral leadership?
Cuba, as you know, is ruled by a gang whose only claim to authority is the fact that they hold the guns. They have absolute power over the life of every Cuban, including the power to keep anyone there, for the rest of his life.
It does matter.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Before I continue I would like you not to avoid these questions and statements’ that I left for you in this previous post...
Bernie Misiura Says:
October 14th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The court did not march into Cuba; the girl is in our country, and we are sending her back;
for that, we bear the moral responsibility -- and shame.
________
So, if you were to save in good conscience someone’s life and later he/she murders someone I guess that means that you would bear the moral responsibility, the shame, and should be duly punished?
[[[What about this question that you avoided?]]]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A parent who wants his child to live the rest of his life in a slave state, when there is an opportunity to live in freedom, is by that fact unfit, and the court should have said so.
____________
Arguable it is to state the Cuba is a slave state... in fact what do we know of his father? There are some very privileged, and privileged people that live in Cuba, after all he came her to claim his child was fighting our court system, is going to take him back, he must have some kind of money and privilege. If we deserve the brunt of any shame, it is to have needlessly made this man spend his money on our legal system, and taking the same away form his family and child.
[[[Is the above not true?]]]
So the government should take my child from me because I only make $20K a year and give him to you because you make $250K because your income would without question provide a better life, present more opportunities’, and allow more freedoms? (Or would it with the child’s knowledge that he has a father and family that he cannot see or later come to believe that his family wants noting to do with him) Sorry I do not buy it, and that should be the crux of this argument, where should this line be drawn?
[[[And these two?]]]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The difference to a human being between a life under oppression or a life in freedom is not subjective
____________
You think it is objective?
[[[and this one...]]]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Making a comparison to ALL people who live in Korea and ONE child in a car is not germane. Enough on that
[[[I think I made my point here...]]]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If a Jewish child managed to escape from Nazi Germany, and his parents wanted him back,
returning the child would be monstrous. Should the child die for parents' "rights"?
First, I believe this argument to be silly and moot; beside we are not sending this kid back to Cuba to be executed.
[[[So what about your questionable highly exaggerated simile that this Cuban girl is going to die as a Jew would if sent back to Germany?]]]
Nice compassion ploy but it does not work for me because again that argument is not germane.
Second, the parents I am sure helped him escape and [[[key word here is parents]]]
Third, it is moot because this cultural structure no longer exists. [[[And what about this?]]]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I assume you agree that children may properly be taken from parents who are unfit
_________
Again, that definition of unfit worries me.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Our disagreement is only over what constitutes unfitness
____________
Very true.
Great debate, Thanks!
[[[Furthermore I was not stung by the nazis either I directly addressed it as repeated above]]]
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Our disagreement is only over what constitutes unfitness
Minnesota courts have interpreted it this way: "... whenever a breach of the parental trust occurs, no matter from what cause, of such a character that the fundamental welfare of the child is actually endangered, at that moment the state's right to assume its guardianship arises." State v. Klasen, 143 NW 984, citing State v. Brown, 52 NW 935 and others.
The court justified the state taking charge of a child under the Juvenile Court Act on the sole ground of a parent's inability to support it, reaching a level of neglect at the point a child is "dependent on the public for support." This condition is a necessary characteristic of a "dependent child" under the act. This definition, by the way, is what characterizes a dependent child under our state Social Security Act of 1937 as well. This is where the state must draw the jurisdictional line in the sand for intervention under the IV-D Child Support Program, and for a custody hearing under our welfare legislation (which is what Family Courts use to place wards of the state in a dissolution proceeding).
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
"Bernie Misiura Says:
"October 14th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
"So, if you were to save in good conscience someone’s life and later
he/she murders someone I guess that means that you would bear the moral
responsibility, the shame, and should be duly punished?"
_____________________________________________________________
"In good conscience?" What on earth are you calling "in good conscience?"
Of course I would be responsible, if I knew he was a murderer. To save Hitler, knowing he's Hitler, would be unspeakably wicked. If I did it, I would have the blood of every one of his subsequent victims on my hands. Of course, if I didn't know that the person I'm saving is a murderer, if I reasonably assumed he's a normal person, and he later murdered someone, then I would not be responsible. I cannot be responsible for what I cannot know.
Now let's change the example. Suppose you were an American judge at the time of Nazi Germany, and you allowed a Jewish child to be returned to his parents there, knowing that he might be killed, and then he were killed. You would be morally responsible for his murder, since your action made it possible. The Nazis, of course, would also still be responsible, but you would share in the responsibility because you enabled the murder. No one would suggest that America should have deferred to the German legal system. People would recognize that the Nazi regime is a criminal government, with no right to exist, and that its legal system is part of that criminal government. All this would be true, no matter how the child had come to be in America, even if he had been kidnapped, even if he had been forcibly ripped out of the arms of his screaming parents. No one would speak of parental rights, because there is no right to endanger your child, if there is an alternative. Everyone would recognize that the only thing that mattered was saving the child, period.
Moral responsibility would also belong to those American citizens who encouraged and supported the fatal decision, even if they had no influence, because in our country there is always the possibility that government officials may be influenced by the arguments of the citizens. Furthermore, a judge who makes the right decision deserves moral credit for doing so, and so do the citizens who argue for the right decision, even if their arguments are ignored. That is why you and Mr. Sacks share the blame for the lifelong subjugation of Elian Gonzalez and Rafael Izquierdo's daughter, while I am morally praiseworthy for arguing against allowing their fathers to have them subjugated.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I KNOW, I KNOW
Said I wouldn't answer anymore to this conversation. But this 1 is unbelievable.
______________________
Charles Seidel Says:
If I did it, I would have the blood of every one of his subsequent victims on my hands.
That is why you and Mr. Sacks share the blame for the lifelong subjugation of Elian Gonzalez and Rafael Izquierdo's daughter, while I am morally praiseworthy for arguing against allowing their fathers to have them subjugated.
_______________________
There you go again. Comparing the death camps of the Nazis.
Then you are -in your own words-, responsable for EVERY child that is in a country that "YOU KNOW" the government is wrong.
YOU should go to everyone of these countries, and kidnap ALL the children. Then have ALL the people sterilized. Because as you say, the people that live in these countries do not have any rights.
YOU know that all the children in Cuba are subjugated? Then by your thinking "YOU have the life of everyone of these children on YOU"
*****
Since when does a loving parent not have the right to raise their own children? Perhaps these people that have Rafael Izquierdo's daughter, should have YOUR children? He is obviously RICH enough to give them a lot more than you may be able too.
EXACTLY what do you know about the real family life of any child in CUBA. You are going by a website that someone posted THEIR feelings. Did you ever bother to learn the REAL family life of anyone in CUBA?
That website downs Elian being proud of his heritage. That it is wrong to salute you own flag.
MY GOD I guess that makes me a "subjugated" person because, I also, am proud of my US heritage and salute my US flag.
There is NO WAY you will ever under the true meaning of family. For that, I feel very sorry for you
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Charles, Perhaps, you will get the answers to your questions. If you can logically explain:
~ How you can justify, comparing this to a Jew in Nazi Germany. Jews were exterminated, murdered en masse. How on earth does that compare to Cuba?
October 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Linda W Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Charles, Perhaps, you will get the answers to your questions. If you can logically explain:
~ How you can justify, comparing this to a Jew in Nazi Germany. Jews were exterminated, murdered en masse. How on earth does that compare to Cuba?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THANK YOU LINDA! You are a peach.
Charles seems to be stuck in the past. I have already posted that his line of debate is moot because the comparison is not germane and with a cultural system that no longer exists. I guess I will have to stop debating with him until he can change his line of argument.
Besides he wants us to answer all his questions but he does not have to reciprocate.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I have never equated Cuba with Nazi Germany; there are similarities, and also differences.
The sole purpose of my comment of October 23, to which you are referring, was to answer the question which was asked of me, and which I understood to mean, "Are human beings responsible for the consequences of actions which they enable?" My answer is yes, if those consequences are predictable. To illustrate, I used an uncontroversial example. The example is uncontroversial because everyone will agree that a hypothetical American judge who sends a Jewish child back to Nazi Germany, knowing he might be murdered, would be responsible for his death if he were. Uncontroversial examples are the best ones for illustrating a principle. I did not say that all enabled consequences are equal, as you inferred. The principle applies as well to good consequences, in which case the enabler deserves moral credit for making the good outcome possible.
Next: When a person arrives in America, he comes under the jurisdiction of the American government, regardless of how he came here. Our government is not responsible for the whole world, but it is responsible for securing people's rights in America. In the case of a child, this may mean protecting him from present or prospective dangers posed by his own parents. For example, if the government discovers that his parents plan to take him to a bad place where bad people will do bad things to him, the government must stop it, whether the bad place is inside America or abroad. It does not follow that our government governs the whole world, and is responsible for all dangers to all children in all countries everywhere.
The following uncontroversial hypothetical example illustrates the principle: Imagine that your child's playmate is visiting your home when someone calls you with the disturbing news that a hungry bear has invaded the playmate's own home and is in the process of eating all the inhabitants. It is your responsibility to keep that child at your home, even if she wants to return to her home, until the coast is clear. If you let her return home and she is eaten, you are culpable for her demise, even though a., she was not your child; b., she was not eaten in your home; and c., you didn't eat her. You are culpable because a., she was a child; b., you knew the danger; and c. -- this is the crucial part -- she was in your home, under your protection, when she embarked on her fateful final journey. It does not follow that you are responsible for all dangers to all children in all homes everywhere in the world.
I offer these answers to you and Bernie Misiura because you raised these questions. My own take on the two Cuban children is: For God's sake, do whatever it takes, but save them!
Next to my keyboard is Men's Health magazine for November, with a picture of basketball star LeBron James on the cover, along with a quote from him: "No one was going to take my dream away from me." That is what Mr. Gonzalez's son and Mr. Izquierdo's daughter will not be able to say, perhaps ever in their lives, and not only if they should want to be celebrity athletes, but whatever their dreams and abilities. They will be forced to use their time, effort, and mind to serve the edicts of the regime. Of course, the regime will say the service is to their countrymen, but it makes no difference; as long as they are forced to serve, they will not be free to live for their own sake and by their own mind and effort, as human beings should. They will not be able to choose their own goals, the goals which would make them happy, and to act to attain them. Their lives will not belong to them. You say I do not "under[stand] the true meaning of family," and you probably believe those fathers understand it; yet they did that to their children. Those men should not have done it, they should not have been allowed to do it, and it is to America's shame that we did allow it.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Charles Seidel Says:
You say I do not "under[stand] the true meaning of family," and you probably believe those fathers understand it; yet they did that to their children. Those men should not have done it, they should not have been allowed to do it, and it is to America's shame that we did allow it.
___________________
Neither child was brought here by their fathers. Where did you read that their fathers did this? As I read the story, the mothers brought them here ILLEGALLY. (we have laws for a reason)
Thus the fathers did NOT do this to their children. The mothers did it and shame on them. What kind of life would the mothers have provided these children. Having to look over their shoulders every day to make sure they are not caught?
Every day children are brought back to Cuba and other countries by their parent(s). Families are deported back to their own countries every day including Cuba. The only difference here is OUR government has decided to steal these children. Even when they had the information on how to contact the fathers.
Our officials are abusing the children, not the fathers. If the fathers entered this country with these children. And the mothers wanted them back to Cuba. You can bet, the children would not be stolen from her. It is a big deal ONLY because they are the fathers.